I went to my GP in Sheffield recently about some pains I've been having in my right arm and hand - I believe some form of RSI (repetitive Strain Injury).

I know that it's from working on a PC all day everyday - but that's my job - I can't NOT use a PC for my work.

Anyway, I explained the symptoms I was experiencing and the GP seemed very vague on what it could be, she kept trying to suggest it was carpell tunnel (which incidentally only aftects three fingers and the wrist not the whole hand and fingers & thumb). She then looked up RSI on Wikipedia right there in front of me!

I have to say I was a bit taken a back. Has anyone else's GP done this? After all Wikipedia is not a bonafide resource - i.e. people can add whatever they like to it whether it's true or not - but more so I was just shocked that she essentially just 'googled' the problem. :suspect:

In the end she told me just to take 400mg of ibuprofen 3 times a day - huh? Oh well, not a long term solution, maybe I will have to change careers instead.

My doctor has two dice-one with a disease on each face and one a treatment on each face.You can guess the rest.

It's a bit iffy looking that kind of info up on wikipedia, since people can edit the articles.

I went to my GP in Sheffield recently about some pains I've been having in my right arm and hand - I believe some form of RSI (repetitive Strain Injury).

I know that it's from working on a PC all day everyday - but that's my job - I can't NOT use a PC for my work.

Anyway, I explained the symptoms I was experiencing and the GP seemed very vague on what it could be, she kept trying to suggest it was carpell tunnel (which incidentally only aftects three fingers and the wrist not the whole hand and fingers & thumb). She then looked up RSI on Wikipedia right there in front of me!

I have to say I was a bit taken a back. Has anyone else's GP done this? After all Wikipedia is not a bonafide resource - i.e. people can add whatever they like to it whether it's true or not - but more so I was just shocked that she essentially just 'googled' the problem. :suspect:

In the end she told me just to take 400mg of ibuprofen 3 times a day - huh? Oh well, not a long term solution, maybe I will have to change careers instead.

Wikipedia is potentially just like any other journal. It is only as good as it's references. If the Wiki page was well referenced I can't see any problem with what your GP has done.

The anti-inflammatory action of ibuprofen may help with your problem if you take it 3 times a day, instead of just when you are in pain. If this doesn't sort it out then your GP will consider further treatment.

The anti-inflammatory action of ibuprofen may help with your problem if you take it 3 times a day, instead of just when you are in pain. If this doesn't sort it out then your GP will consider further treatment.

Maybe the GP will start a poll on the forum:

Should my patient...
(1) Take ibuprofen and hope for the best;
(2) Have his arm amputated just to be on the safe side?
(3) Stop whining, grin and bear it, after all it was much worse in the olden days?
(4) Find a new GP? [/i]

Wikipedia is potentially just like any other journal. It is only as good as it's references. If the Wiki page was well referenced I can't see any problem with what your GP has done.


Some expert might write a brilliant and accurate article with lots of good references. Then I might go on and add a load of rubbish to the article. The references won't tell you it's wrong.

Some expert might write a brilliant and accurate article with lots of good references. Then I might go on and add a load of rubbish to the article. The references won't tell you it's wrong.

One would hope that the doctor was only using it as a reference / second opinion.

Some expert might write a brilliant and accurate article with lots of good references. Then I might go on and add a load of rubbish to the article. The references won't tell you it's wrong.

It shouldn't change anything as anyone worth their salt would only rely upon the referenced stuff.

It shouldn't change anything as anyone worth their salt would only rely upon the referenced stuff.

? How would they know what I had changed? Wikipedia allows you to write and re-write anything. I could change the body of the article and leave the references intact, and no-one would know it had been changed. It would still 'look' referenced.

? How would they know what I had changed? Wikipedia allows you to write and re-write anything. I could change the body of the article and leave the references intact, and no-one would know it had been changed. It would still 'look' referenced.

A quick look at the edits page and everyone would know it had been changed.

If it was a previously well written article, fully referenced and "brilliant" as you put it, then your edits would last less than 5 minutes at a guess, as several people will be watching the page for vandalism; they have taken the time to write it, so will not be averse to reverting it when defaced.

Within those five minutes, if a doctor looks up the entry for RSI and you have filled it with nonsense, they will be able to see that it's clearly garbage, and if they need confirmation they need only check one or two references (just a click away), check the edit history.

Wikipedia, like google, is fine if you know how to use it.

I went to my GP in Sheffield recently about some pains I've been having in my right arm and hand - I believe some form of RSI (repetitive Strain Injury).

I know that it's from working on a PC all day everyday - but that's my job - I can't NOT use a PC for my work.

Anyway, I explained the symptoms I was experiencing and the GP seemed very vague on what it could be, she kept trying to suggest it was carpell tunnel (which incidentally only aftects three fingers and the wrist not the whole hand and fingers & thumb). She then looked up RSI on Wikipedia right there in front of me!

I have to say I was a bit taken a back. Has anyone else's GP done this? After all Wikipedia is not a bonafide resource - i.e. people can add whatever they like to it whether it's true or not - but more so I was just shocked that she essentially just 'googled' the problem. :suspect:

In the end she told me just to take 400mg of ibuprofen 3 times a day - huh? Oh well, not a long term solution, maybe I will have to change careers instead.


Incidently carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms usually start gradually, with frequent burning, tingling, or itching numbness in the palm of the hand and the fingers, especially the thumb and the index and middle fingers. So how do you work out that the thumb isnt affected by carpal tunnel. I have a friend who had carpal tunnel syndrome and their's started in their thumb. Also carpal tunnel can be caused be repetative movements.

If it was a previously well written article, fully referenced and "brilliant" as you put it, then your edits would last less than 5 minutes at a guess, as several people will be watching the page for vandalism; they have taken the time to write it, so will not be averse to reverting it when defaced.
.

It's good to know. Let's hope the doctor wasn't looking at it in that five minute gap just after I had changed it and just before it was changed back to its previous state.

Maybe it was the Doctor that put the Wiki page up in the first place.

It's good to know. Let's hope the doctor wasn't looking at it in that five minute gap just after I had changed it and just before it was changed back to its previous state.

Why? Because you think a doctor would simply believe everything he reads on wikipedia?

My doctor has two dice-one with a disease on each face and one a treatment on each face.You can guess the rest.

*roll* severe spinal injury

*roll* plaster

I would rather a GP look up my symtoms on the internet to be sure rather than rely totally on his/her memory.

I would not be worried if my Doctor had to rely on other sources as another option, atleast there researching what it could be rather than just guessing.

Is the GP young? I have on occasion seen my doctor look through his own medical book and I have seen young new doctors look through them quite alot and never been bothered by it, they are only double checking.

Most doctors use Google though, so I was told be an ER doctor.

*roll* severe spinal injury

*roll* plaster

That's one of the more appropriate outcomes.I once had "laryngitis"and"enema"Mind you it worked,I soon got my voice back.

I've known my GP look in reference books, but never on the internet!

My GP has never used wikipedia, to my knowledge, but has often sought a second opinion by referring to journal or other material. I have no problems with a GP seeking information from the net or anywhere else.

Mine uses a crystal ball.

There must be loads of well-accredited sources of medical information for GPs on the internet. Why use one that anyone can tinker with? It can't be the only reference site available to them.

Mine uses a crystal ball.

After a freak pogo-stick accident,mine prescribed crystal balls.:o

A few years ago, I visited my GP for a routine appointment. He looked at my records and suggested that I may have a condition that he'd seen on TV the night before! As it's an extremely common condition and hardly life threatening(and one I was perfectly aware of) I declined his offer of borrowing the video tape he'd recorded.